MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           20 September 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001055599

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	
	Ms. Paula Mokulis		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his departure from the military he was told that he would receive a honorable discharge.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

That on 29 October 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 5 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police).  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and, on 25 March 1992, he was assigned to Germany.

On 26 May 1994, the applicant received an administrative Letter of Reprimand 
for making obscene gestures (grabbing his crotch) and using profanity on 8 May 1994.    

On 9 June 1994, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for making three prank calls and orally communicating indecent language to a female on 22 and
24 April 1994, while on duty as a military policeman.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $466.00 pay for 1 month and 30 days' extra duty.

On 25 August 1994, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel and he was determined to be mentally responsible and qualified for separation and he had no psychiatric disorder or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels. 

On 21 October 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense with a GD.  The commander cited the above offenses as the basis for his recommendation.

On the same date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He was also advised of the rights available to him.  He was not entitled to an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers.  The applicant submitted a statement in which he contended that the military police co-worker who alleged that he made the prank calls was wrong.  He stated that he made no such calls. 

On 10 November 1994, the intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be separated with a GD. 

On 16 November 1994, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and that he was not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.  

On 13 December 1994, the applicant was separated with a GD, for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month, and 15 days of creditable military service.

On 4 April 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  During the initiation of the separation action, the applicant was notified in writing that he could receive a GD.  He also signed his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) at the time of separation which indicated that he had received a GD. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RJW__  __KWL__  __PM ___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001055599	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20010920	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	941213	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.